Ron Paul’s “South Was Right” Civil War Speech With Confederate Flag

It appears Mark Levin was removed from WSPD nighttime slot because of his criticism of Ron Paul. The Virginia based program director Brian Wilson is a dyed in the wool supporter of Ron Paul. Ron Paul is a anti Civil Rights Presidential Candidate. Look at what Ron Paul has said in the past.
Ron Paul’s “South Was Right” Civil War Speech With Confederate Flag
Quote from article:
"Ron Paul has made no secret the fact that he thought that the South was right in the Civil War. Here he is giving a speech in front of a giant Confederate Flag about why he believes the North was wrong in the Civil War and why the South was right.
Ron Paul is a neo-Confederate, and proud member of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, which has been labeled as a neo-Confederate organization. In the video he claims that the North should have paid to buy slaves from southern slave owners to avoid the war, rather than the South renouncing slavery. Paul also fails to bring up the fact that it was the South that started the war by attacking the North in 1861."

No votes yet

I've got news for you, Wolfman: The South WAS right.

The USA was a confederation of nearly sovereign states. The federal government just kept growing as a monster, and we really had no Beowulf to put a stop to it. The U.S. Constitution specified the formation of the federation, and how states could continue to join it. But by definition, its silence on the issue of Secession only meant that secession was legal. Anything not specified in the U.S. Constitution automatically becomes a right retained by the states or the people.

So the South could secede, and the remaining government of the North should have honored that, in accordance to its own law (i.e. the U.S. Constitution). But the North was Fascist, at least as it was expressed in that age, and Lincoln was the worst of the bunch of them. If only Booth had shot Lincoln 4 years earlier, we might have avoided all that mess with the concomitantly huge loss of Human life. Then brother would not have lined up to shoot brother, and whatever ruffled feathers remained would have been smoothed over with time, and then at least two nations of appropriate size would have existed to share the middle of the North American continent.

I must repeat: The South was right. Legally. Morally. They had every right to secede. But that's not what our imperial education system will ever tell you.

You're quite right, but you'll get some heat for your response.

Cue Purnhrt!

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

They were right to fire on and kill US soldiers? Um, ok.
I think that every time I see some stump jumper moron with a rebel flag on his truck. Killing US servicemen is okay, as long as it was 150 years ago? By that logic, my great grand kids will be able to put an Al Qaida bumper sticker on their hover crafts?
I appreciate your historical/legal reasoning on the matter GZ. But some actions are beyond forgiveness. That flag should be removed from the SC flag and anyone flying it just plain wrong.

I think the same thing everytime I see some tree-hugging liberal with a "Coexist" sticker on their car. At least a Confederate flag has some historical importance.

Lincoln made it perfectly clear that he would unlawfully resist the Secession with force. Going to war over Sumter was merely Lincoln champing at the bit.

That was the action what doesn't merit forgiveness. The nation was founded on the ideals of liberty, but those ideals were countered or compromised literally as soon as the nation was established. Soon enough these glorious soldier types that you so laud were firing on the free men of Shay's Rebellion, so pardon me if I don't shed a tear if they are fired on themselves. (You'll never see me crying over some U.S. soldier catching a bullet or shrapnel in the Middle East, for example. All free peoples should fire on Imperial Legions with impunity, as those legions are the largest danger to liberty worldwide. After all, U.S. soldiers don't catch some lead on their own soil! That's the real problem here.)

Finally, what happens in SC is literally none of your goddamned business. You're in Ohio, therefore an Ohioan, right? Confine your local concerns to Ohioan business and leave other states alone. That's really what was the problem with Lincoln and his ilk: He didn't honor the scope of his legal power. He didn't obey the natural sovereignty of the states. Lincoln was pretty much the first imperial President of the nation, and it only led to more imperial Presidents, until what we have today is an unbroken succession of them.

Too bad that today we have such a strong model of empire that it can only end in blood and tears. I'm sure you can guess which side that I'll be firing from. The people that I'll sadly have to puncture with bullets, will be wearing uniforms with U.S. flags on them. Maybe they should have instead considered that their orders were illegal in the first place!

Just one note. The South probably would have won the Civil War but Lee invaded the North when he crossed into Maryland and the tide was turned a week later when his forces were defeated at Gettysburg.

Additionally, many consider the Civil War to actually have begun when John Brown and his men forcibly took control of the armory at Harper's Ferry, VA (now WVA). Since that marked the first aggression upon the issue of slavery, that combined with the Bloody Kansas riots/insurrection was what stoked southern paranoia and put the Missouri Compromise/Free Soil into jeopardy and thus causing them to become much more militant.

Additionally, secession is not illegal. The Suprmem Court acknowledges that rebellion is only not illegal when it is successful. Also to seceed without bloodshed is the requirement is not the consent of the state wishing to seceed but the constent of all the states according to the Supreme court. Meaning if all the states legislatures and Congress vote in favor of say Vermot leaving the Union then Vermont could become it's own country, a US territory, or join Canada.

The closest we've ever come to an actual legal secession was Southern Oregon and Northern California had done almost everything required to seceed from their states and form the State of Jefferson, the problem is the last hurdle was a vote in Congress which was to occur on 7 Dec 1941. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor instead took all the attention of Congress and the State of Jefferson, which already elected a governor, was no more.


Otherwise known as the War Between the States, or the War of Northern Aggression.

There most certainly was a segment of the Northern populace that favored secession and saw it as a viable alternative to civil war.

I've always enjoyed the reaction from the Moonbats when someone reminds them that it was the Democratic party that favored slavery. The Republican party stood for freedom and was willing to go to war for their beliefs - which is just another small illustration of the difference between the Moonbats and the GOP.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

It’s great that you need to back almost 150 years to find when Republicans weren’t racist assholes. All this flipped during that civil rights era when the Dixiecrat wing of the Democratic party left the the Democrats for the open arms of the Republicans.

For more Republican fun, Google Nixon’s Southern Strategy…

While you're Googling, you might want to do some research on Al Gore's dad. He voted against the Civil Rights Act. It's also fun to see that in the House of Representatives only 61% of the Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act, whereas 80% of the Republicans voted for it. In the Senate, 69% of the Democrats voted for the Act and 82% of the Republicans voted in favor. Aren't facts fun?!

Correct, most Southern Democrats voted against it. Sixty years later how many Southern Democrats are there?

As for Al Gore’s dad (Southern Senator) voting against it…so, George H. Bush’s dad made his money working for the Nazi and the Koch brothers dad made their family fortunes working with Stalin…

You never fail to satisfy. Snapped it up hook, line and sinker.

Face it, G. You just got slapped and your face is still stinging. Figuratively speaking, of course.

All I did was quote historical fact - not the speculative fiction that the resident Moonbats try to foist off as factual accounts, scientific studies and gospel truth as they would like it to be. To bad, too. Your story was just getting interesting.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

"George H. Bush’s dad made his money working for the Nazi"
Actually that is incorrect.

The Bush fortune was made by Samuel Prescott Bush (Columbus native) and George Herbert Walker who were both bankers. For instance the family retreat in Kennebunkport was passed down from George Walker.

Samuel's son, Prescott, was involved with the Swiss Union Banking Corporation which did have it's assets for a time forzen but no link that the UBC did hold assets for United Steel a German company whose CEO was once a member of the Nazi party. Interesting fact, the CEO was arrested BY THE NAZI'S in 1940.

So your statement is based off a guy involved with a company that does the banking for a company where a guy was at one time a Nazi. Not really a direct link there is it.

Oh yeah and the Anti-Defamation League doesn't agree with you and called the allegation politically motivated. So not only did you misconstrue where the family fortune came from you posed a political attack as fact and it was based off of A LOT of assumptions and an independent third party directly countered your assertion.

Now as for Fred Koch, he publicly disavowed the Soviet Union and remained the rest of his life a dedicated anti-communist and helped found the John Birch Society. AND Fred Koch's patents in the oil industry helped to break up the monopolies of the larger oil companies, so by attacking Fred Koch you are essentially supporting Big Oil Businesses.

Why are you for Big Oil?


Lysander Spooner once owned all the land that is now Grand Rapids, Oh. That's a fun fact.

Any statement I make is the opinion of me exercising my first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is generally permitted.

If it meant forcing an end to slavery, OF COURSE the North was right. It's sad to think that a libertarian like Paul is more concerned with "states' rights" than the rights of human beings.

Pink Slip

You need to understand the importance of real sovereignty. It is ever our task as free men to inform statist men like you about that.

He understands perfectly well. The difference is that since he doesn't like it, he ignores it.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

Where in the Constitution does it say the states are sovereign entities? Lincoln framed it correctly:

"Our States have neither more, nor less power, than that reserved to them, in the Union, by the Constitution—no one of them ever having been a State out of the Union. The original ones passed into the Union even before they cast off their British colonial dependence; and the new ones each came into the Union directly from a condition of dependence, excepting Texas. And even Texas, in its temporary independence, was never designated a State."

Pink Slip

There are some things I like about Ron Paul. But here's what I don't like--on the surface he seems to be a fervent protector of individual liberty. However, I truly believe that he is only against the federal government's attack on liberties. I believe he is perfectly fine with the states attacking individual liberties.

Pink Slip

I always find it interesting when liberals attempt to describe the 3/5ths compromise as proof that the country was founded by racists.

When the real truth is the 3/5ths compromise was intended to limit the power of slave-owning states by not allowing those who didn't enjoy the rights afforded to citizens the ability to be represented as a whole person in an effort to give their owners more political power.

Had the 3/5ths compromise not been enacted then there would have been no Missouri Compromise, which served only to delay the slavery question. This is because the slave trade was officially ended in 1807 by Jefferson (who publicly recommended it's end when the legislation was introduced) which was the same year Great Britain made the trade illegal, prior to that it was not allowed by statute but by precedence.

In fact, the holding of slaves was well onto full erradication but the popularity of the cotton gin in the South in the 1820's & 30's increased the demand for slaves and thus extended the industry and the question.


"I always find it interesting when liberals attempt to describe the 3/5ths compromise as proof that the country was founded by racists."

I haven't heard anyone say that. Usually, the subject of hypocrisy arises--especially the founders that spoke of liberty and equality and yet owned slaves.

Pink Slip

Oh I most certainly have.

I had a professor in college try to spew that crap. It also was also described as such on the West Wing, not much of a right wing program. Also here It's been pushed by many teachers and has been widely documented.

"Usually, the subject of hypocrisy arises--especially the founders that spoke of liberty and equality and yet owned slaves." And many of the founders also freed their slaves so when does the hypocrisy end?


I've heard it on several occasions, the first being during a high school American history class.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

this country was founded on racism? Well I have a few words for them! Point me to them!

I'd certainly tell you. I don't. However, if you feel like hammering someone, might I suggest SensorG? He's been asking for a good tongue lashing for a long time now, and I really don't have the energy to oblige him.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

Purnhrt all you need to do is google the phrase "The constitution is racist".

Also I can look for the name of the West Wing episode where the character Toby described it as such during a discussion on redistricting if you like. The producer/writer for the West Wing is Aaron Sorkin, I believe you can find him in Los Angelos or nearby.


I was being facetious.....this country, founded on racism??? Bah Humbug!

The Colbert Report Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Word - American History X'd
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog Video Archive

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.